Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 at 09:30:34 am EDT (Viewed 788 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 at 01:06:05 am EDT (Viewed 765 times)


      In any case, that agreement is minor compared to the Iran deal which was agreed to by Iran, the U.S., and the other five most powerful nations on Earth.
    Is your point that agreements made with less powerful nations are okay to break, but agreements made with more powerful nations should not be broken? I'm confused by you mention power rankings. An agreement with a foreign nation was exited in both cases. You can twist them any way you like, but it's hypocritical to claim one broken deal shatters world trust in the US, but braking a different one leaves trust intact.

I am saying context matters. Absolutely the United States breaking a major deal with say, Britain, would generate far more distrust than the United States breaking a minor deal with Liechtenstein. I guarantee you that would be the perception.


      This is reducing a very complex scenario into what you want it to be about. Gaddafi giving up his weapons has nothing to do with NATO strikes due to Libyan Civil War crimes.
    Gaddafi giving up his nuclear arsenal had everything to do with the foreign invasion of Libya. The US and France would have been far less likely to invade Libya if Libya still had nuclear and chemical weapons. How many nuclear armed nations has France invaded lately?

Gaddafi had ambitions for but NEVER had nuclear weapons, so you're wrong. I don't think their possessing chemical weapons would hinder an invasion whatsoever. The belief that Iraq had chemical weapons didn't hinder Bush's invasion of that country, but rather the opposite, that was used as a reason to invade. Syria is being attacked for using chemical weapons. So wrong again.


      That's like saying that because Iran agreed not to produce nuclear weapons, they are immune to attack if they attacked Israel. It's nonsense.
    No, it's not like saying that at all. I'm saying the exact opposite. There is an opinion that the example set with Gaddafi is that nuclear weapons are what's needed to prevent a foreign invasion. Rogue nations feel they need to have nuclear weapons to prevent the US from toppling them. Gaddafi playing along and giving up his weapons programs is what allowed the US and France among others to invade.

You completely missed the point. Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons doesn't exempt them from consequences for other bad behavior. Gaddafi was toppled for other bad behavior, not because he gave up his weapons programs, which were not nearly evolved enough to deter invasion anyway.

    I've never said Obama was wrong. The constant replies to my posts when I defend any action by Trump, is that I am calling Obama wrong. This idea that you have to choose one person to idolize, and the other to despise is inaccurate. I never said Obama was wrong to exit the agreement with Poland. I'll make you the same suggestion I offered to bd2999....let's break our repeating pattern. If you tell me five things you think Trump has done well, I'll provide five criticisms.

What would be the point of that? Do you believe all politicians are equal? That's preposterous. Apparently all you can do on this board is try to be the hypocrisy police. Except that most of what you point out as hypocrisy ignores the full context of the examples.

How to make an entrance:
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software